Subject: [Geopriv] AD Review: draft-ietf-geopriv-flow-identity-00

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:19:27 -0600

Summary: There is one point that needs to be clarified with a revised ID 
before progressing to IETF LC.

Thanks for producing such a succinct draft. This is one of the rare 
cases where we need more words, not fewer.
The draft needs to be more explicit about whether it is _changing_ 6155 
or if it is just extending it.

The current use of Updates, and the language at the bottom of page 5 
seems to say "All implementations of 6155
need to be updated right away - it's not ok and can result in error to 
continue to use the ports from 6155." If that's
really the intent of the document, please say it that strongly (in the 
abstract and the introduction).

If it was the intent only to provide an extension that could be used in 
circumstances where the base mechanism in 6155
would fail, then this extends 6155, not updates, and the header doesn't 
need to say anything.

The protocol writeup needs to be adjusted to match the result - 
currently it says

" Working Group Summary:

This document is a simple extension to an existing protocol and was
uncontroversial in the working group."

which would be true if the intent was to only provide an extension as 
opposed to changing (Updating) the protocol in 6155.

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:56:57 -0800

This is reasonable.  There is a statement deprecating ports at the end
of Section 3.  At a minimum, that could be moved up.

Highlighting the limited applicability of port is sufficient, and the
draft could be more definite on this point.  Moving this to the
introduction might make this clear.

"""Given the limited applicability of using IP and port for
identification, the port number elements from Section 3.3 of [RFC6155]
are deprecated and MUST NOT be used.  Flow identity provides a more
generally applicable means of identifying devices behind NAT
devices."""

Then I think that we can justify the "updates" clause.

On 12 February 2013 09:19, Robert Sparks <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Thanks for producing such a succinct draft. This is one of the rare cases
> where we need more words, not fewer.
> The draft needs to be more explicit about whether it is _changing_ 6155 or
> if it is just extending it.
>
> The current use of Updates, and the language at the bottom of page 5 seems
> to say "All implementations of 6155
> would fail, then this extends 6155, not updates, and the header doesn't need
> to say anything.
>
> The protocol writeup needs to be adjusted to match the result - currently it
> says
>
> " Working Group Summary:
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>

---

From: Ray Bellis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:03:00 +0000

> Then I think that we can justify the "updates" clause.

Thanks Robert for the comments, and Martin for the suggested text.

I'll incorporate this (or something very similar to it, given that this needs to blend nicely with paragraph 2 of the introduction) and rev the document shortly.

thanks,

Ray